Recently, I’ve seen governance proposals about “delegated voting” again. They say it’s meant to increase participation, but the more I look, the more it feels like concentrating votes among a small number of familiar faces. Governance tokens—who are they actually governing? To put it plainly, many times they’re governing that little psychological desire of ordinary people: “too lazy to read, but still want to be represented.” In the end, it turns into an oligarch club holding meetings, while we just give a thumbs-up from the sidelines.

This AI Agent wave feels pretty similar too. Automated trading plus all sorts of on-chain interactions gets hyped to the heavens by a lot of people, but when it comes to signing authorizations and permission boundaries—those details—nobody seems willing to take a closer look. Later on, I realized it’s kind of ridiculous. Governance talks about “decentralization,” yet the execution keeps looking more and more like outsourcing. Anyway, what I care about more now is the structure: who can revoke a delegation at any time, whether the delegator has transparent constraints, and whether voting power and profit rights are tightly coupled… otherwise, no matter how many proposals get brought up, it’s just a different wording for “proxy voting” by another name.